The Nixonian scandal of our generation unfolds even more profoundly...

James Delingpole:

Climategate: another smoking gun…

Despite the Al-Gore-Kool-Aid-drinkers’ best efforts to suppress it, the Climategate scandal continues to blossom and flourish. (Or should that be putresce and pullulate?)

I think my favourite comic detail this week just has to be the one about the amazing not-so-fast-shrinking glaciers. As you’ll know if you’ve been reading reports like this scare stories about glaciers retreating “faster than predicted” are a central plank of the IPCC’s case that we should carbon-tax ourselves back to the Dark Ages NOW. According to the IPCC, the Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035.

Or should that be 2350? Yep it seems those scientific experts who make the IPCC’s reports so famously reliable and trustworthy have a bad case of numerical dyslexia. The mistake was spotted by a Canadian academic:

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″.

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

Well quite.

But just when you think it can’t get any better, along comes this cracker of an expose at Watts Up With That, courtesy of scientist Willis Eschenbach.

Eschenbach has been looking more closely into one of the big unanswered questions of the great Climate Wars: how reliable is the climate data used by the IPCC?

He focuses on just one country, Australia, and on one weather station – at Darwin Airport – and compares the raw temperature data recorded at the station with the “adjusted” version of the data.

Here’s what he found:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/12/DARWIN7.png

Notice the anomaly? It’s not exactly difficult. The blue line is the trend on the raw data, showing a slight cooling. The red line is the data once it has been adjusted by scientists at the Global Historical Climate Network – which is one of the main sources of temperature data used by the IPCC. Eschenbach finds the extremity of this “homogenization” adjustment rather shocking:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

But just how shocking is this discovery. We-e-ll – as Eschenbach reminds us, it is only one weather station. Also, he points out, it is quite normal for scientists to make these homogeneity adjustments, as he explains quoting the GHCN:

Most long-term climate stations have undergone changes that make a time series of their observations inhomogeneous. There are many causes for the discontinuities, including changes in instruments, shelters, the environment around the shelter, the location of the station, the time of observation, and the method used to calculate mean temperature. Often several of these occur at the same time, as is often the case with the introduction of automatic weather stations that is occurring in many parts of the world. Before one can reliably use such climate data for analysis of longterm climate change, adjustments are needed to compensate for the nonclimatic discontinuities.

What he can’t fathom at all, though, is the mind-boggling scale of these adjustments. They can only be explained in terms of scientists with a very particular agenda.

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

Do read the full piece (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/). Its wonderfully revealing of the dirty tricks used by the scientists pushing AGW to exaggerate their case. And what’s particularly damning is that it shows how the Climategate scandal extends far, far beyond those so far implicated at the Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia.

Here is the GHCN in context:

There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.

In other words the most important temperature data record in the world – even more important than CRU – has been found cheating. Here is Eschenbach’s conclusion:

Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.

And CRU? Who knows what they use? We’re still waiting on that one, no data yet …

What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.

And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers.

Still feel confident, do you, all you warmists who’ve been gloating about all that data allegedly proving that we’re living through times of quite unprecedented hotness?

NASA and other climatologists have said that the earth is in a cooling stage and has been for years. Hell before the industrialized movement across the planet, there have been recordings and documents that have shown the earth to be overall, warmer at that time. Now how can that be? The world is more industrialized now than ever, yet back before any of this was around the global climate as a whole was....warmer???

This has nothing to do with Global Warming and everything to do with trying to uphold to some ridiculous liberal political agenda. It's about trying to make money, and have the americans pay more taxes to fund bullshit govt programs like these little Gestapo's that are supposed to come around to your house to check and make sure your home meets certain energy saving guidelines and if not then you get punished, taxed, fined, what have you. Look at what Al Gore's net worth was when he was v-president. He was worth "only" about $2million while serving under the Clinton Administration. Then he goes insane and complete loses himself after the loss to GWB in the 2000 election, (at that time Forbes listed his net worth to be around only $800K) gets really fat, grows a beard to disguise himself in public and is never heard of for a while. BUT THEN.....THEN!!!!!!......he comes back like a knight in shining armor wearing a Captain Planet costume and wants the American people to become "aware" of Global Warming and comes out with this documentary about how we're going to have a global climate change, movies come out in Hollywood like The Day After Tomorrow which ironically makes the asshole-like US Vice Prez look almost identical to Dick Cheney, but I'm getting off topic. Gore wins an Academy Award, him and his political buddies in the UN climate group IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) win a Nobel Piece Prize all in the year of 2007. Suddenly Gores net worth jumps up to about $100 Million. It pays to be Green. Gore is a piece of shit.

orange

12-09-2009, 04:41 AM

C'mon, Taco. You're smarter than that.

What's with the HUGE DROP right at 1935-40 in the graph? And how can the blue "real trend line" simply IGNORE IT? :doh!: And as for Cogley - "He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″. Except that they didn't. The IPCC report does not rely on that report.

You'd be much better off not even looking at this buffoon. Clown acts like Delingpole and Monckton kill the chance for serious debate.

Bwana

12-09-2009, 08:16 AM

SHOCKING!!

BigRedChief

12-09-2009, 08:25 AM

This coming from a guy who thinks 9/11 was a plot by our own government.

cookster50

12-09-2009, 08:26 AM

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

KC native

12-09-2009, 08:47 AM

Seriously? One station and one location invalidates the hundreds/thousands of other monitoring points? BTW how long did this guy mine the data to find a location that fit his thesis?

Taco, you are and idiot for posting this.

Hydrae

12-09-2009, 08:50 AM

Seriously? One station and one location invalidates the hundreds/thousands of other monitoring points? BTW how long did this guy mine the data to find a location that fit his thesis?

Taco, you are and idiot for posting this.

No, if you find an error in one location then perhaps you should rereview the other data to ensure this did not occur multiple times. In the meantime do not make long term decisions based on data that may be compromised. Be sure of where you are stepping before entering the street.

KC native

12-09-2009, 08:54 AM

No, if you find an error in one location then perhaps you should rereview the other data to ensure this did not occur multiple times. In the meantime do not make long term decisions based on data that may be compromised. Be sure of where you are stepping before entering the street.

I sort of agree with you. Though I'm a liberal, I think the alarmists about GW damage the cause more than help it (I'm looking at you Al Gore). I'm of the firm mind if we make a bunch of little changes in a lot of areas that it will go a long ways towards taking care of our planet. I don't think immediate drastic changes are necessary but doing nothing is idiotic.

Royal Fanatic

12-09-2009, 08:57 AM

In the meantime do not make long term decisions based on data that may be compromised.
EXACTLY!

The global warming zealots don't give a damn that the changes they are proposing are massive changes that will seriously impact our economy. They'd rather stick just yell that the debate is over and then start reaching for our wallets.

Never mind that many of them will get rich in the process (see Al Gore). It's all about saving the planet, baby.

Royal Fanatic

12-09-2009, 08:57 AM

I sort of agree with you. Though I'm a liberal, I think the alarmists about GW damage the cause more than help it (I'm looking at you Al Gore). I'm of the firm mind if we make a bunch of little changes in a lot of areas that it will go a long ways towards taking care of our planet. I don't think immediate drastic changes are necessary but doing nothing is idiotic.
This makes a lot of sense.

stevieray

12-09-2009, 08:58 AM

yup, the ol it took millions of years to form , but only a hundy to bring it all crashing down.

classic....

KC native

12-09-2009, 09:00 AM

yup, the ol it took millions of years to form , but only a hundy to bring it all crashing down.

classic....

:shake: Stevie, when did the industrial revolution start? :doh!:

Hydrae

12-09-2009, 09:05 AM

I sort of agree with you. Though I'm a liberal, I think the alarmists about GW damage the cause more than help it (I'm looking at you Al Gore). I'm of the firm mind if we make a bunch of little changes in a lot of areas that it will go a long ways towards taking care of our planet. I don't think immediate drastic changes are necessary but doing nothing is idiotic.

I heard an interesting point on the radio this morning. Most, if not all, new inovations come out of the 1st world countries. If we throttle them with regulations like are being proposed it will slow down inovation dramatically and inhibit the possibility of new technology such as low impact power generation. If we allow this to happen it will be many more years before we get cleaner energy due to simple economics. I thought it a pretty valid point.

KC native

12-09-2009, 09:08 AM

I heard an interesting point on the radio this morning. Most, if not all, new inovations come out of the 1st world countries. If we throttle them with regulations like are being proposed it will slow down inovation dramatically and inhibit the possibility of new technology such as low impact power generation. If we allow this to happen it will be many more years before we get cleaner energy due to simple economics. I thought it a pretty valid point.

Not necessarily. Remember, Necessity is the mother of all invention.

I'm not a fan of cap and trade because it allows people (financial institutions) who have no vested interest in the underlying "carbon allowances" to speculate and drive prices.

Hydrae

12-09-2009, 09:10 AM

Not necessarily. Remember, Necessity is the mother of all invention.

I'm not a fan of cap and trade because it allows people (financial institutions) who have no vested interest in the underlying "carbon allowances" to speculate and drive prices.

The concern was more to do with the economic impact of some of the proposed ideas coming from Copenhagen. If we are sending billions to 3rd world countries as some kind of reparations that is that much less we can invest in researching new options. This is counter-intuitive to the stated goals.

BucEyedPea

12-09-2009, 09:12 AM

The concern was more to do with the economic impact of some of the proposed ideas coming from Copenhagen. If we are sending billions to 3rd world countries as some kind of reparations that is that much less we can invest in researching new options. This is counter-intuitive to the stated goals.

Climate issues that merely mask international socialism. Restribution of wealth by forcing those more prosperous to share. Again, it's a hatred of Capitalism that really drives this movement.

KC native

12-09-2009, 09:16 AM

Climate issues that merely mask international socialism. Restribution of wealth by forcing those more prosperous to share. Again, it's a hatred of Capitalism that really drives this movement.

You should really quit posting. You never engage in debate. You just lob labels as fast as your fingers can type while ranting about socialism the whole time. Just give it a rest.

LOCOChief

12-09-2009, 10:26 AM

Climate issues that merely mask international socialism. Restribution of wealth by forcing those more prosperous to share. Again, it's a hatred of Capitalism that really drives this movement.

THIS!!!!!!

That's the whole ball of wax.
That's the deal.
In a nutshell.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is a dumb as kcnative who by the way can GFY

banyon

12-09-2009, 10:49 AM

They found a typo! Global Warming is disproven!

BucEyedPea

12-09-2009, 01:37 PM

THIS!!!!!!

That's the whole ball of wax.
That's the deal.
In a nutshell.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is a dumb as kcnative who by the way can GFY